> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:20:57PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > +/* simplify initialization of mask field */
> > > +#define CYCLECOUNTER_MASK(bits) (cycle_t)((bits) < 64 ?
> > > ((1ULL<<(bits))-1) : -1)
> >
> > That has me chasing through the C integer promotion rules.
> > Better might be:
> > ((bits) < 64 ? (1ULL << (bits)) - 1 : (((1ULL << 63) - 1) << 1) + 1)
> > I actually suspect there is a standard definition somewhere?
>
> This is an exact copy of CLOCKSOURCE_MASK, and if wrong, then both are
> wrong. In any case, I can't see any issue here. Is not
>
> (some_int_type) -1
>
> always equal to
>
> 0xf...(width of type)
>
> for all integer types, when using 2s compliment?
As I said, it leaves me chasing through the promotion rules (which I
probably know if I actually think hard enough).
Thinking... ~0ULL would be nice and simple and correct.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
